Reilly Complaint

Case 1:15-cv-00349-REB-SKC Document 126 Filed 02/01/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 54
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-349
SAFE STREETS ALLIANCE, PHILLIS WINDY HOPE REILLY, and MICHAEL P.

REILLY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALTERNATIVE HOLISTIC HEALING, LLC, d/b/a Rocky Mountain Organic; JOSEPH R.

LICATA; JASON M. LICATA; 6480 PICKNEY, LLC; PARKER WALTON; CAMP FEEL
GOOD, LLC; ROGER GUZMAN; BLACKHAWK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION;
WASHINGTON INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE CO.; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN W.
HICKENLOOPER, JR., in his official capacity as Governor of Colorado; BARBARA J.
BROHL, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of
Revenue; W. LEWIS KOSKI, in his official capacity as Director of the Colorado
Marijuana Enforcement Division; THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
THE COUNTY OF PUEBLO; and PUEBLO COUNTY LIQUOR & MARIJUANA
LICENSING BOARD,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

______________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs the Safe Streets Alliance (“Safe Streets”), Phillis Windy Hope Reilly, and
Michael P. Reilly file this suit to vindicate the federal laws prohibiting the cultivation and
sale of recreational marijuana and their rights under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). The Reillys are Colorado property owners who
have been injured by a conspiracy to cultivate recreational marijuana near their land,
and they are members of Safe Streets. Plaintiffs seek redress under RICO, which
requires those who engage in racketeering activity—including the commercial
production of marijuana—to pay those they injure treble damages, costs, and attorneys’
fees. Plaintiffs also seek an injunction under RICO directing the marijuana operations
affecting their land to stop violating the federal drug laws. In addition to their RICO
claims, Plaintiffs are also suing the state and local officials who are facilitating and
encouraging Colorado’s recreational marijuana trade, including the racketeering activity
that is injuring their property, through a licensing regime that purports to authorize
federal drug crimes. Because state and local government actions that promote the
marijuana industry directly conflict with the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”),
those actions are preempted under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and
must be set aside.
I.
INTRODUCTION
1. It is a bedrock principle of the United States Constitution that federal law is
the supreme law of the land. State laws that are flatly inconsistent with constitutionally
authorized federal law have no force or effect. On the issue of recreational marijuana,
federal law is clear: it is a felony under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (“CSA”)
1
to deal in marijuana. Despite the express federal prohibition on marijuana, Colorado
and many of its local jurisdictions have enacted laws, ordinances, and regulations
designed to promote the growth of a billion dollar commercial marijuana industry. Yet
notwithstanding that recreational marijuana is now “legal” in Colorado, the drug’s
cultivation, sale, and possession remain serious federal offenses in Colorado, just as
they are everywhere else in the United States. Indeed, those associated with
Colorado’s largest-scale marijuana producers risk being sent to federal prison for the
rest of their lives. The people of Colorado are free to advocate for a change in this
federal criminal prohibition, but they must do so through their elected representatives in
Congress. Under our federal system, Congress alone can authorize revision of federal
laws prohibiting the commercial trade in recreational marijuana.
2. Of course, in recent years the United States Department of Justice has
largely declined to bring prosecutions under the federal marijuana laws, prompting
hundreds of millions of investment dollars and thousands of new customers to flow into
Colorado’s commercial marijuana industry. But the Justice Department’s current policy
of non-enforcement does not strike a single word from the U.S. Code or deprive private
individuals of their judicially-enforceable rights under federal law. The Department of
Justice can no more amend a federal statute than can the State of Colorado, and
marijuana remains just as illegal under federal law today as it was when Congress
passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970.
3. Marijuana businesses make bad neighbors. They emit pungent, foul
odors, attract undesirable visitors, increase criminal activity, increase traffic, and drive
2
down property values. Safe Streets is a nonprofit organization devoted to reducing
crime and illegal drug dealing, and the Reillys are property owners who have suffered
injuries caused by the operations of a nearby marijuana business. Together, they are
filing this suit to vindicate their federal rights under RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq., the
CSA, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq., and the Supremacy Clause.
4. Dealing in marijuana is racketeering activity under RICO, and those who
engage in a pattern of racketeering activity through a corporation or other enterprise are
liable for three times the economic harm they cause plus costs and attorneys’ fees.
Those who conspire with racketeers by agreeing to assist them are likewise liable.
RICO also gives federal courts the power to order racketeering enterprises and their
coconspirators to cease their unlawful operations. Accordingly, the Reillys ask this
Court to award them the damages, costs, and fees to which they are entitled, and all
Plaintiffs request that the Court order the RICO defendants to cease their open and
notorious violation of federal law.
5. Furthermore, the CSA preempts the practice of state and local officials in
Colorado of issuing licenses to operate recreational marijuana businesses. Those
licenses not only purport to authorize but also affirmatively assist the criminal conduct of
those who receive them by making it easier for license holders to attract investors and
customers. Recreational marijuana business licensing directly conflicts with and poses
a major obstacle to federal law’s goal of reducing marijuana trafficking and possession
through an almost total prohibition on the drug’s cultivation and distribution.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs ask this Court to order the named state and local governmental
3
defendants to withdraw the recreational marijuana licenses they have issued so far and
not to issue any additional such licenses in the future.
II.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ RICO claims
under 18 U.S.C. § 1964 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal preemption claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the
Plaintiffs seek remedies for their federal preemption claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651,
2201, and 2202.
7. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because most of
the Defendants reside in Colorado and a substantial portion of the events giving rise to
this suit occurred in Colorado. Venue over Plaintiffs’ RICO claims is also proper under
18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) because the RICO defendants reside in Colorado and transact
affairs in Colorado.
III.
PARTIES
8. Plaintiff Safe Streets is a membership organization whose members are
interested in law enforcement issues, particularly the enforcement of federal laws
prohibiting the cultivation, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Plaintiffs Phillis
Windy Hope Reilly and Michael P. Reilly are members of Safe Streets, as are numerous
other individuals and organizations throughout Colorado. The Reillys and other Safe
Streets members have suffered injuries caused by the operations of the Colorado-
licensed marijuana industry.
4
9. Plaintiffs Phillis Windy Hope Reilly and Michael P. Reilly are Colorado
residents who own approximately 105 acres of land immediately east and adjacent to
the recreational marijuana grow at 6480 Pickney Road, Rye, CO 81069.
10. Defendant Alternative Holistic Healing, LLC, d/b/a Rocky Mountain
Organic, is a Colorado corporation that has its principal place of business at 5412
Highway 119, Unit B, Black Hawk, CO 80422, where it operates a recreational
marijuana cultivation facility and retail shop. It operates an additional recreational
marijuana cultivation facility at 6480 Pickney Road.
11. Defendant Joseph R. Licata has a fifty percent interest in Alternative
Holistic Healing and is one of its two members. He resides at 1300 West 70th Avenue,
Denver, CO 80221.
12. Defendant Jason M. Licata has a fifty percent interest in Alternative
Holistic Healing and is one of its two members. He resides at 212 Elk Place, Black
Hawk, CO 80422.
13. Defendant 6480 Pickney, LLC owns the marijuana cultivation at 6480
Pickney Road in Rye, CO. Defendant Parker Walton (“Walton”) is the sole member,
manager, and owner of 6480 Pickney, LLC. Walton’s last known residence and the
principal office of 6480 Pickney, LLC, are located at 3275 S. Clermont Street, Denver,
CO 80222.
14. Defendant Camp Feel Good, LLC is a Colorado corporation Walton
formed and that, on information and belief, Walton owns and controls. Camp Feel Good
5
leases Walton’s land from 6480 Pickney, LLC. Camp Feel Good’s mailing address is
P.O. Box 20236, Colorado City, CO 81019.
15. Defendant Roger Guzman (“Guzman”) is the President of Defendant
Blackhawk Development Corporation, a Colorado corporation that owns the property at
5412 Highway 119. Guzman’s mailing address is P.O. Box 1743, Evergreen, CO
80437, and Blackhawk Development Corporation’s mailing address is also P.O. Box
1743, Evergreen, CO 80437.
16. Defendant Washington International Insurance Co. is a New Hampshire
corporation that issues surety bonds on behalf of marijuana businesses in Colorado,
including Alternative Holistic Healing. Its principal place of business at 475 N.
Martingale Road #850, Schaumburg, IL 60173.
17. Defendant John Doe 1 constructed the marijuana grow facility at 6480
Pickney Road. Defendants Alternative Holistic Healing, Joseph Licata, Jason Licata,
6480 Pickney, Walton, Camp Feel Good, Guzman, Blackhawk Development Corp.,
Washington International Insurance Co., and John Doe 1 are hereinafter referred to as
the “Individual Defendants.”
18. Defendant John W. Hickenlooper, Jr., is the Governor of Colorado and is
named in his official capacity. As Colorado’s chief executive official, Hickenlooper is
responsible for overseeing the enforcement and administration of the state’s marijuana
laws. The Governor’s mailing address is 136 State Capitol, Denver, CO 80203.
19. Defendant Barbara J. Brohl is the Executive Director of the Colorado
Department of Revenue and is named in her official capacity. The Colorado Marijuana
6
Enforcement Division is a division of the state’s Department of Revenue, and it
promulgates regulations under the Colorado Retail Marijuana Code. It also issues
licenses to Colorado marijuana businesses. The Department of Revenue’s principal
office is located at 1375 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80261.
20. Defendant W. Lewis Koski is the Director of the Colorado Marijuana
Enforcement Division and is named in his official capacity. The Marijuana Enforcement
Division’s principal office is located at 455 Sherman Street, Suite 390, Denver, CO
80203. Defendants Hickenlooper, Brohl, and Koski are hereinafter referred to as the
“State Defendants.”
21. Defendant Board of County Commissioners of the County of Pueblo
(hereinafter “Pueblo County Commission”) was the local marijuana licensing authority at
the time Alternative Holistic Healing received its local license to cultivate marijuana at
6480 Pickney Road. Since that time, Pueblo County marijuana licensing responsibilities
have been transferred to Defendant Pueblo County Liquor and Marijuana Licensing
Board. Both licensing authorities operate at 215 W. 10th Street, Pueblo, CO 81003.
They are hereinafter referred to as the “Pueblo Defendants.”
IV.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Federal Law Prohibits the Production and Distribution of Recreational Marijuana
22. Congress passed the CSA in 1970 as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug
Abuse Prevention and Control Act. 84 Stat. 1236. Among the purposes of the CSA
was to reduce drug abuse and the illegitimate traffic in controlled substances in the
7
United States by prohibiting the unauthorized production, distribution, or possession of
controlled substances.
23. When it passed the CSA, Congress found that “[t]he illegal importation,
manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances
have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the
American people,” 21 U.S.C. § 801(2), and that “[a] major portion of the traffic in
controlled substances flows through interstate and foreign commerce,” id. § 801(3).
The CSA seeks to address the social and economic ills caused by drug abuse and drug
trafficking by prohibiting the illicit drug trade.
24. The CSA categorizes drugs according to a series of schedules, with the
most dangerous drugs falling under Schedule I. See id. § 812(b). Schedule I drugs
have “a high potential for abuse.” Id. § 812(b)(1). In enacting the CSA, Congress
classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug. Id. § 812(c). Congress thus deemed
marijuana to have a high potential for abuse. Id. § 812(b)(1). By classifying marijuana
as a Schedule I drug, as opposed to listing it on a lesser schedule, Congress made the
manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana a criminal offense, with the sole
exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration preapproved
research study. Id. §§ 823(f), 841(a)(1), 844(a).
25. The large-scale manufacture and distribution of marijuana is a serious
felony under the CSA. A first-time offender convicted of producing or distributing 1,000
or more marijuana plants is subject to a sentence of 10 years to life imprisonment. Id.
§ 841(b)(1)(A). Growing 100 or more marijuana plants subjects the first-time offender to
8
a sentence of 5 to 40 years imprisonment. Id. § 841(b)(1)(B). The cultivation and sale
of smaller amounts of marijuana is punishable by maximum sentences that can be as
long as 20 years. See id. § 841(b)(1)(C), (D). The CSA also criminalizes the
possession of marijuana. Unless otherwise authorized by federal law, possession of
marijuana by a first-time offender is punishable by up to 1 year of imprisonment. Id.
§ 844(a).
26. In addition to its prohibitions on cultivation, sale, and possession of
marijuana, the CSA also forbids a wide range of other activities connected with the
operations of a marijuana business. Thus, it is a crime to possess “any equipment,
chemical, product, or material” with the intention of using it to manufacture marijuana,
id. § 843(a)(6), or to distribute any such material with the knowledge that it will be used
to manufacture marijuana, id. § 843(a)(7). The CSA bars the use a telephone, email,
mail, or any other “communication facility” in furtherance of the manufacture or sale of
marijuana, id. § 843(b), and it is a federal crime to use the Internet to advertise the sale
of marijuana, id. § 843(c)(2)(A). Reinvesting the proceeds from marijuana operations is
also a crime, id. § 854(a), as is knowingly facilitating a financial transaction involving
funds derived from manufacturing and selling marijuana, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957,
1960. It is also a crime to knowingly lease, rent, maintain, manage, or control a place
where marijuana is manufactured or sold. 21 U.S.C. § 856. Leading a group of five or
more people who commit a continuing series of federal marijuana crimes is an
especially serious offense. Id. § 848. And attempting or conspiring to commit most of
9
those crimes is also a criminal offense. See id. § 846; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1),
1956(h), 1957(a).
27. These criminal prohibitions on virtually every aspect of the marijuana
business make the federal policy embodied in the CSA unmistakably clear: marijuana is
a dangerous drug that is banned throughout the United States. And because RICO
defines most violations of the CSA as “racketeering activity,” see 18 U.S.C.
§ 1961(1)(D), any business engaged in the commercial cultivation and sale of
recreational marijuana is a criminal enterprise for purposes of federal law. Those who
conduct or conspire to assist such enterprises are subject to the severe criminal
sanctions and civil liability that RICO imposes. See id. § 1962(c), (d).
Colorado Facilitates the Production and Distribution of Recreational Marijuana
28. Despite the strict federal prohibitions on virtually every aspect of the
commercial marijuana business, Colorado and many of its local jurisdictions have
erected a marijuana regulatory regime that purports to authorize and seeks to regulate,
tax, and promote those federal crimes.
29. In 2012, Colorado voters approved Amendment 64, an amendment to the
state constitution that legalizes recreational (sometimes called “retail”) marijuana under
Colorado law. Amendment 64 declares it to be “not unlawful” to possess, use, display,
purchase, transport, grow, or process marijuana for personal use in compliance with the
State’s recreational marijuana regulatory regime. COLO. CONST. art. XVIII, § 16(3). It
also says that it is “not unlawful” for a business to manufacture, possess, purchase,
cultivate, harvest, process, package, transport, display, or possess marijuana for sale
10
so long as the business complies with state and local recreational marijuana statutes
and regulations. Id. § 16(4).
30. To give effect to and further the goals of Amendment 64, the Colorado
General Assembly passed the Colorado Retail Marijuana Code. COLO. REV. STAT.
§ 12-43.4-101 et seq. The Retail Marijuana Code purports to expressly authorize the
cultivation, distribution, and possession of marijuana for recreational use. Thus, it
speaks of licensees “authorized, to cultivate, manufacture, distribute, sell, or test retail
marijuana and retail marijuana products,” id. § 12-43.4-103(4), says that “[a] retail
marijuana store may cultivate its own retail marijuana if it obtains a retail marijuana
cultivation facility license,” id. § 12-43.4-402(1)(b), and specifies the circumstances
under which “[a] licensed retail marijuana store may . . . sell retail marijuana, retail
marijuana products, [and] marijuana accessories,” id. § 12-43.4-402(7)(a).
31. Numerous other provisions of the Retail Marijuana Code contain similar
statements purporting to authorize violations of the CSA. See, e.g., id. § 12-43.4-304(1)
(“A license applicant is prohibited from operating a licensed retail marijuana business
without state and local jurisdiction approval.”); id. § 12-43.4-402(1)(c)(II) (“A retail
marijuana store or another retail marijuana cultivation facility may sell no more than
thirty percent of its total on-hand inventory to another Colorado licensed retail marijuana
establishment.”); id. § 12-43.402(2)(b) (specifying when “[a] retail marijuana store
licensee may transact with a retail marijuana products manufacturing licensee for the
purchase of retail marijuana”); id. § 12-43.4-402(8) (describing “where an automatic
dispensing machine that contains retail marijuana or retail marijuana products may be
11
located”); id. § 12-43.4-901(5)(a) (“[N]o person shall form a business . . . with the
purpose or intent . . . of transporting, cultivating, processing, transferring, or distributing
marijuana or marijuana products without prior approval of the state licensing authority
and the local jurisdiction.”). See also id. § 13-22-601 (referring to “lawful activities
authorized” by Amendment 64).
32. The Retail Marijuana Code charges the Department of Revenue’s
Marijuana Enforcement Division (“MED”) with issuing state licenses “for the cultivation,
manufacture, distribution, sale, and testing of retail marijuana.” Id. § 12-43.4-202(2)(a).
In implementing the state’s marijuana licensing regime and other marijuana regulations,
MED has described its mission to include creating “collaborative partnerships with
stakeholders that establish public trust and value in the agency.” A 2014 MED-
commissioned report says that the agency seeks “proper control and regulation of state-
level marijuana production” by “design[ing] the regulatory framework surrounding the
control and pricing measures necessary to maintain an orderly market.” The agency’s
overarching goal is thus to authorize, facilitate, and promote Colorado’s commercial
recreational marijuana industry.
33. Under the Retail Marijuana Code, businesses may only cultivate and
distribute marijuana if they obtain both state and local licenses authorizing them to do
so. COLO. REV. STAT. § 12-43.4-309(2). To enable marijuana businesses to operate,
MED issues five types of state recreational marijuana licenses: (1) retail marijuana store
licenses, which authorize the licensee to sell marijuana at a particular location, id.
§ 12-43.4-402(1); (2) retail marijuana cultivation facility licenses, which authorize the
12
licensee to cultivate marijuana at a particular location, id. § 12-43.4-403(1); (3) retail
marijuana products manufacturing licenses, which authorize the licensee to produce
marijuana-infused products for human consumption at a particular location, id.
§ 12-43.4-404(1); (4) retail marijuana testing facility licenses, which authorize licensees
to perform testing and research on retail marijuana, id. § 12-43.4-405(1); and
(5) occupational licenses for owners, managers, operators, employees, contractors, and
other support staff associated with licensed marijuana businesses, see id.
§ 12-43.4-401(1)(e).
34. When MED issues a recreational marijuana business license, it provides
the business with a physical certificate that includes in large font the following text:
“State of Colorado, Department of Revenue, Marijuana Enforcement Division, Retail
Marijuana Conditional License.” Under the Retail Marijuana Code, licensees must
“conspicuously place the license at all times on the licensed premises.” Id.
§ 12-43.4-309(8). The prominent display of these licenses lends the State’s name and
credibility to the licensee, thus functioning as a state endorsement that encourages
others to do business with it.
35. The Retail Marijuana Code requires marijuana occupational licensees to
wear state-issued badges while working in “limited-access areas”—anywhere that
marijuana is grown, cultivated, stored, weighed, packaged, sold, or processed for sale.
Id. § 12-43.4-901(3)(a); see id. § 12-43.4-105 (defining “limited access area”). These
state-issued badges are at all times the property of state licensing authorities. 1 COLO.
CODE REGS. 212-R233(C). Like the physical licenses marijuana businesses must
13
display, the occupational licensee badges encourage potential marijuana investors and
customers by prominently signaling the State’s endorsement of the licensee.
36. To obtain licenses, the owners, officers, managers, and employees of
businesses that seek to participate in the state-approved recreational marijuana industry
must pass criminal history background checks, COLO. REV. STAT. § 12-43.4-
202(3)(a)(III), and MED can deny licenses to applicants deemed to lack “good moral
character,” id. § 12-43.4-306(1)(b)–(d), (g). These background checks promote
investment in the recreational marijuana industry by assuring potential investors that
those associated with licensed marijuana businesses do not have extensive criminal
records. For similar reasons, the mandated background checks encourage the
consumption of recreational marijuana by signaling to potential customers that the State
has investigated and approved the licensed businesses.
37. The State’s recreational marijuana licensing regime also encourages the
growth of the marijuana industry by prohibiting false advertising, id. § 12-43.4-901(4)(b),
requiring producers of marijuana-infused products to satisfy certain sanitary standards,
id. §§ 12-43.4-202(3)(a)(IV) & (XI), 12-43.4-404(3), and mandating the installation of
security and surveillance equipment on licensed premises, id. § 12-43.4-202(3)(a)(V).
Like the state background checks, these regulatory requirements assure customers of
the safety of the premises and products sold by licensees. The result of this state
oversight is a larger volume of sales for the recreational marijuana industry and easier
access to investment dollars. Indeed, a 2014 MED-commissioned report acknowledges
14
that “legalization and commercial sale of marijuana” could increase consumption of the
drug in part by “provid[ing] a more reliable and safer product than the black market.”
38. The Retail Marijuana Code also promotes the cultivation, distribution, and
consumption of marijuana by expressly applying the State’s antitrust laws to
recreational marijuana businesses. See id. § 12-43.4-901(4)(i). Antitrust laws promote
market competition, thus reducing the price and increasing the quantity and quality of
products sold. The purpose and effect of extending these laws to the marijuana
industry is to increase the total amount of marijuana cultivated, sold, and consumed.
39. Other provisions of the Retail Marijuana Code allow MED to limit
production and the number of licenses it issues but require it to consider “the total
current anticipated demand for retail marijuana and retail marijuana products in
Colorado,” id. § 12-43.4-202(4)(b)(II)(A), and “the reasonable availability of new licenses
after a limit is established,” id. § 12-43.4-202(4)(b)(I)(A). Those considerations show
that the overall aim of the state’s licensing regime is to facilitate and promote the
cultivation and sale of marijuana.
40. MED also oversees a “responsible vendor” program under which licensed
recreational marijuana businesses receive the favored designation of “responsible
vendor” by sending their employees to certain MED-approved classes. See id.
§§ 12-43.3-1101, 1102. This status entitles marijuana businesses to favorable
treatment from state and local regulators. Id. § 12-43.3-1101(3); see 1 COLO. CODE
REGS. 212-2-R407. Colorado lends its name and credibility to the marijuana businesses
15
it designates as “responsible,” thus promoting investment and sales for the businesses
that enjoy this special state status.
41. Further confirming that its overarching marijuana policy is to promote and
facilitate violations of the CSA, the state is reinvesting a portion of its recreational
marijuana taxes in a splashy “Good to Know” marketing campaign that seeks to
destigmatize marijuana and promote its use by out-of-state visitors. In one radio ad
paid for by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the announcer
says that “now that marijuana’s legal here, we’ve all got a few things to know. But
instead of telling you what you can’t do, we’re going to tell you what you can do too.”
The announcer then rhythmically recites a poorly constructed poem over banjo and
tambourine music: “If you choose to use, don’t drive high,/ Instead, just walk, or skip, or
catch a ride./ . . . And whatever you get here can’t leave our state,/ so stick around
awhile, you’ll find this place is pretty great.” These verses and the State’s other
marketing efforts are a transparent attempt to promote the commercial recreational
marijuana industry.
42. MED has issued hundreds of recreational marijuana business and
occupational licenses, and each of these licenses authorizes and facilitates the
commission of federal drug crimes. In an interview, Defendant Brohl summed up the
purpose of these licensing efforts by stating that her “goal is to look at the overall
market” and ensure that “the overall market ha[s] sufficient supply to meet the demand.”
43. Since enactment of Amendment 64, the marijuana industry has
experienced explosive growth in Colorado, and this growth would not have been
16
possible without the State Defendants’ implementation of laws that authorize, facilitate,
and assist the industry. Department of Justice enforcement guidance makes clear that
non-enforcement of the CSA by the Executive Branch depends on the “states and local
governments that have enacted laws authorizing marijuana-related conduct . . .
implement[ing] strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems.” Thus,
Colorado’s marijuana laws and MED’s implementation of those laws are key
components of the Colorado marijuana industry’s success.
44. Among Amendment 64’s stated aims is to “enhanc[e] revenue for public
purposes.” COLO. CONST. art. XVIII, § 16(1)(a). To that end, recreational marijuana
sales are subject to a ten percent state recreational marijuana sales tax, COLO. REV.
STAT. § 39-28.8-202, a fifteen percent state excise tax, id. § 39-28.8-302(1)(a), as well
as the state’s ordinary 2.9% sales tax. Colorado also enriches itself from the
recreational marijuana industry by charging licensees numerous hefty permitting fees.
45. Predictably, the State Defendants’ efforts to promote the recreational
marijuana industry have yielded substantial revenues for the state. MED records
indicate that in October 2015 alone, Colorado received approximately $9.2 million in
sales and excise taxes from the recreational marijuana industry, along with an additional
$521,615 in license and application fees. The state is thus enriching itself by
systematically authorizing, facilitating, and promoting serious federal drug crimes.
46. Defendant Hickenlooper summarized Colorado’s efforts to profit from its
support for the recreational marijuana industry, explaining that the state has
implemented “robust regulations that allow the industry to develop and prosper.”
17
Through those regulations, the State has facilitated the emergence of a billion dollar
industry built upon the brazen commission of federal drug crimes.
The Pueblo Defendants Facilitate the Production and

Distribution of Recreational Marijuana
47. Alternative Holistic Healing obtained its local license to cultivate
recreational marijuana at 6480 Pickney Road from the Pueblo County Commission,
which at the time was responsible for local marijuana licensing in Pueblo County,
Colorado. Like MED, the Pueblo County Commission’s practice was to regularly issue
licenses that purport to authorize businesses to cultivate, produce, and sell recreational
marijuana and marijuana-infused products. The Pueblo County Commission’s
recreational marijuana licensing responsibilities were subsequently transferred to
Defendant Pueblo County Liquor and Marijuana Licensing Board, but this does not
represent a meaningful change in overall recreational marijuana licensing policy for
Pueblo County.
48. The Pueblo marijuana licensing authority may deny a recreational
marijuana business license based on the results of an investigation into “the character
and background of the proposed licensee, its owners, officers, directors, agents,
servants and/or employees and the sources of its financial investment.” PUEBLO
COUNTY CODE § 5.12.070(D). Recreational marijuana business licenses issued by the
Pueblo licensing authority thus encourage the marijuana industry’s potential investors
and customers by signaling that county officials have investigated the backgrounds of
those associated with the licensee and that the County licensing authority endorses the
licensee’s activities.
18
49. Like the Colorado Retail Marijuana Code, the Pueblo County Code
expressly contemplates that county licenses authorize license holders to participate in
the commercial marijuana industry. Thus, a “licensed premises” is defined as the
location where “the licensee is authorized to cultivate, manufacture, distribute, test, or
sell marijuana.” Id. § 5.12.040(7); see also id. § 5.12.040(21) (referring to facilities
where “the licensee is authorized to grow and cultivate marijuana”); id. § 5.12.140(D) (“It
is unlawful and a violation of this Chapter for a Marijuana Establishment to operate until
it has been licensed under this Chapter by the Local Licensing Authority and also
licensed by the State Licensing Authority pursuant to the Colorado Marijuana Code.”);
id. § 5.12.180 (“Any person twenty-one years of age or older is hereby authorized to
manufacture, possess, distribute, sell or purchase marijuana accessories in
conformance with Section 16 of Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution, provided they
meet all applicable state or local laws.”).
50. Pueblo County has enjoyed substantial tax revenue thanks to its efforts to
authorize and facilitate the operations of the commercial marijuana industry. In 2014,
the county received approximately $548,000 in tax revenue from its 3.5% sales tax on
recreational marijuana. It also received an estimated $276,000 in recreational
marijuana license fees. The county has thus enriched itself by promoting and facilitating
violations of the CSA. Pueblo County Commissioner Terry Hart explained the impact of
these revenues on the county’s budget, telling a reporter that “marijuana money may
actually help us pay off a portion of our debt for the new judicial building.”
19
51. Joan Armstrong, a Pueblo County official involved in marijuana licensing
decisions, has described the rise of the marijuana industry in the county as “a huge
economic boon,” and a report states that the marijuana industry employed 1,500 people
in Pueblo County in 2014. Pueblo County Commissioner Sal Pace has expressed his
hope and ambition that Pueblo County will eventually have the “lion’s share of the
state’s grow facilities,” and on another occasion said that he expects the marijuana
industry to “bring a lot of wealth and income and outside dollars into Pueblo.” Such
statements underscore that, like Colorado, Pueblo County has sought to enrich itself
and bolster the local economy by purporting to authorize and seeking to assist the
operations of the recreational marijuana businesses it licenses.
52. Pueblo County’s tourism website further demonstrates that the Pueblo
Defendants’ policy is to promote and profit from federal drug crimes. That website says
that “[t]he cannabis industry in Pueblo County is just like the gaming industry in Las
Vegas” and that tourists are “more than welcome” to visit Pueblo County “for a tour of
the ‘Rocky Mountain High.’ ” The same website also includes a map showing the
locations of Pueblo County recreational marijuana stores.
53. By issuing licenses to operate recreational marijuana businesses, the
Pueblo Defendants purport to authorize conduct that the CSA prohibits. In addition to
authorizing federal crimes, the Pueblo Defendants’ practice of issuing recreational
marijuana licenses facilitates and promotes those crimes by assisting potential
marijuana investors and customers in their search for marijuana businesses.
The Individual and Pueblo Defendants Participate in Licensed Racketeering

Enterprises that Cultivate and Distribute Recreational Marijuana
20
54. On July 1, 2014, Defendant Walton paid $44,900 for the 40.72-acre parcel
located at 6480 Pickney Road, Rye, CO. Within two months, Walton had formed
Defendant 6480 Pickney, LLC, and transferred title to the land to that entity. 6480
Pickney then leased the land to Defendant Camp Feel Good, LLC, another entity that
Walton formed and that, on information and belief, Walton still owns and controls.
55. Walton is the owner and sole member and manager of 6480 Pickney,
LLC, and Camp Feel Good, LLC, and in those capacities he leased the land to
Alternative Holistic Healing, LLC, which grows and sells recreational marijuana under
the name Rocky Mountain Organics at 5412 Highway 119, Black Hawk, CO. Alternative
Holistic Healing is jointly owned and controlled by Defendants Joseph Licata and Jason
Licata, each of whom has a fifty percent interest in the company.
56. In leasing the land, Alternative Holistic Healing, Joseph Licata, Jason
Licata, Walton, 6480 Pickney, and Camp Feel Good all understood and agreed that the
property would be used to grow recreational marijuana for sale at Alternative Holistic
Healing’s Black Hawk store, among other places. Leasing or maintaining property for
the cultivation of marijuana is a crime under 21 U.S.C. § 856 and is racketeering activity
under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D).
57. Alternative Holistic Healing, Joseph Licata, Jason Licata, Walton, 6480
Pickney, and Camp Feel Good also conspired and agreed to work together to develop
the property at 6480 Pickney Road for marijuana cultivation and to contribute to the
ongoing violations of the CSA inherent in those operations. Entering into such an
21
agreement is conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 and is racketeering activity under 18
U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D).
58. To enable Alternative Holistic Healing to grow marijuana on the land,
Walton and 6480 Pickney agreed to construct and have constructed facilities specially
designed for marijuana cultivation. They agreed to construct a building with lighting,
water, and security systems custom built for growing marijuana. On information and
belief, the building also accommodates the processing and drying of marijuana. The
building at 6480 Pickney Road is 3,670 square feet, and Joseph Licata told the Pueblo
County Commission that it would house as many as 600 marijuana plants at one time.
Possessing or constructing these facilities, equipment, products, and materials for the
cultivation and processing of marijuana violates 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6) and is
racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D).
59. The marijuana cultivation facility at 6480 Pickney Road is currently
operational, a fact that is evident from the offensive marijuana smell that the facility has
repeatedly released onto the Reillys’ land. Alternative Holistic Healing’s manufacture of
marijuana and possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute it violates 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a) and is racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D).
60. To undertake the construction of the building, Alternative Holistic Healing
and Walton hired John Doe 1. In light of the many specialized features that are
necessary to make a building suitable for growing marijuana, John Doe 1 is clearly
aware of the purpose of this building. In nevertheless associating himself with 6480
Pickney and agreeing to assist it with the construction, John Doe 1 conspired with the
22
other Individual Defendants and the Pueblo Defendants to violate the CSA. Such
conspiracy violates 21 U.S.C. § 846 and is racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1961(1)(D).
61. On information and belief, Alternative Holistic Healing, Joseph Licata,
Jason Licata, Walton, 6480 Pickney, and Camp Feel Good used the telephone, email,
or other communication facilities to take steps in furtherance of their efforts to unlawfully
lease the 6480 Pickney Road property and develop it. Such uses of communication
facilities violate 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) and are racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1961(1)(D).
62. Alternative Holistic Healing applied for both state and local licenses to
cultivate marijuana at 6480 Pickney Road. On October 1, 2014, MED granted
Alternative Holistic Healing a state license, conditioned on it also obtaining a local
license.
63. On December 29, 2014, the Pueblo County Commission voted 2 to 1 to
grant Alternative Holistic Healing a local license. In voting to deny Alternative Holistic
Healing’s local license application, Pueblo County Commissioner Terry Hart said that he
believed that a marijuana grow at 6480 Pickney Road would interfere with the use and
enjoyment of land in the surrounding area.
64. When it issued a license to Alternative Holistic Healing, the Pueblo County
Commission found that Alternative Holistic Healing had paid all “necessary fees.”
Under Pueblo County Code § 5.12.130(A)(1)(e), applicants for a license to grow
recreational marijuana indoors must pay the county $5,000 plus $0.50 per square foot
23
of space to be occupied by marijuana plants. Based on the size of the recreational
marijuana cultivation at 6480 Pickney Road, Alternative Holistic Healing paid the county
approximately $6,835 for its license.
65. To maintain its license to grow marijuana at 6480 Pickney Road,
Alternative Holistic Healing will be required to pay Pueblo County an annual license
renewal fee of $2,500 plus $0.50 per square foot of space occupied by marijuana
plants. PUEBLO COUNTY CODE § 5.12.130(A)(3)(e). Based on the size of the
recreational marijuana cultivation at 6480 Pickney Road, Alternative Holistic Healing will
owe the county an annual renewal fee of approximately $4,335.
66. In exchange for the ongoing payment of licensing fees, Alternative Holistic
Healing and the other Individual Defendants receive critical benefits from the Pueblo
Defendants. First, the Pueblo license effectively shields the Individual Defendants from
state and federal prosecution. As described above, Colorado law authorizes the
cultivation of recreational marijuana if and only if local officials give their blessing.
COLO. REV. STAT. § 12-43.4-309(2). Similarly, the Justice Department has adopted a
policy of not bringing criminal charges against those who commit marijuana-related drug
crimes in a manner that is consistent with state and local law. Thus, Alternative Holistic
Healing’s licensing fees function as a payment to the county for official protection for
their illegal drug business. This protection is essential to the Individual Defendants’
ability to openly violate the federal drug laws through large-scale cultivation and
storefront sale of recreational marijuana.
24
67. The Individual Defendants also benefit from the license the Pueblo
Defendants issued to Alternative Holistic Healing because it gives their illegal drug
business an appearance of greater legitimacy, thus making it easier to attract customers
and investors. The license is proof of the local government’s authorization,
endorsement, and support for the Individual Defendants’ criminal operations, and this
proof encourages others to do marijuana-related business with the Individual
Defendants. Significantly, the Individual Defendants’ investors and customers
themselves commit federal drug crimes when they do marijuana-related business with
the Individual Defendants.
68. If the license left any doubt about the Pueblo Defendants’ support for
Alternative Holistic Healing, the public statements of Pueblo County officials identified
above make clear that the Pueblo Defendants’ official policy is to join with and facilitate
commercial marijuana conspiracies that operate within their jurisdiction. Indeed, the
county has even gone so far as to promote the recreational marijuana industry on its
website. Such public statements help the Individual Defendants attract investors by
giving assurance that Alternative Holistic Healing has the support of the local
government despite the fact that it is engaged in a manifestly unlawful business.
69. By authorizing, supporting, and facilitating the Individual Defendants’ drug
crimes in exchange for licensing fees and in expectation that those crimes will generate
economic development and tax revenues, the Pueblo Defendants conspired with the
Individual Defendants to violate the federal drug laws. This constitutes conspiracy
under 21 U.S.C. § 846, which is racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D).
25
70. Furthermore, during the licensing process, Pueblo County officials used
email to communicate with Walton. On information and belief, they also used other
communications facilities to communicate with other members of the conspiracy. Those
uses of communications facilities enabled the Individual Defendants to obtain a local
license to cultivate marijuana and thus facilitated the commission of felonies under the
CSA. Such uses of communications facilities violate 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) and are
racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D). On information and belief, the
Pueblo Defendants intend to unlawfully use communications facilities in the future as
part of Alternative Holistic Healing’s license renewal process.
71. In agreeing to develop and assist in the operations of the marijuana
cultivation facilities at 6480 Pickney Road, Walton, 6480 Pickney, Camp Feel Good, and
the Pueblo Defendants became part of a larger drug conspiracy. Through Alternative
Holistic Healing, Joseph Licata and Jason Licata operate a store in Black Hawk,
Colorado, that grows and sells recreational marijuana. The Black Hawk operations
violate numerous provisions of the CSA: maintaining the premises violates 21 U.S.C.
§ 856, growing, processing, and selling marijuana there violates 21 U.S.C. § 841(a),
and maintaining the necessary chemicals, equipment, and materials violates 21 U.S.C.
§ 843(a)(6). On information and belief, Alternative Holistic Healing, Joseph Licata, and
Jason Licata have used the telephone, email and other communications facilities in
furtherance of their drug conspiracy, thus violating 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). Each of those
federal drug crimes is racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D).
26
72. Alternative Holistic Healing’s Black Hawk store is located at 5412 Highway
119, and this property is owned by Defendant Blackhawk Development Corp., which is
controlled by its President, Defendant Roger Guzman. Alternative Holistic Healing,
Joseph Licata, Jason Licata, Blackhawk Development Corp., and Guzman entered into
a lease under which it was expressly agreed that Alternative Holistic Healing would use
the property to sell marijuana. Blackhawk Development Corp. and Guzman thus
violated 21 U.S.C. § 856 and conspired to violate the CSA with Alternative Holistic
Healing, Joseph Licata, and Jason Licata in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
73. Alternative Holistic Healing advertises marijuana for sale over the Internet
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(c)(2)(A), and this is racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1961(1)(D). A posting to Facebook by Alternative Holistic Healing, operating under
the name Rocky Mountain Organics, announced a sale during which customers who
mentioned the marijuana strain “Jack Flash” would receive five dollars off their next
purchase. Another of the entity’s Facebook posts features a photograph of marijuana
buds under what is presumably the name of the pictured marijuana strain: “Lemon
Skunk.” Elsewhere on the Facebook page, Joseph Licata, posing as a customer,
posted the following comment: “Been there and great prices and really great product.”
Licata or someone else affiliated with the entity then replied: “Thank you! We try to have
a variety of strains and edibles, to cater to your individual needs.”
74. On May 27, 2014, Defendant Washington International Insurance Co.
issued a $6,000 surety bond on behalf of Alternative Holistic Healing, guaranteeing its
tax payments to the State of Colorado as contemplated by COLO. REV. STAT.
27
§ 12-43.4-303. The bond expressly states that Alternative Holistic Healing applied “for a
license to act as a retail marijuana cultivation facility in the State of Colorado.”
Washington International Insurance Co. knew and intended for Alternative Holistic
Healing to use this surety bond to obtain recreational marijuana licenses as part of its
efforts to operate a marijuana business in violation of the CSA. By issuing the surety
bond with the intent to further Alternative Holistic Healing’s federal drug crimes,
Washington International Insurance Co. conspired with Alternative Holistic Healing,
Joseph Licata, and Jason Licata to commit crimes under the CSA in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846. That is racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D).
75. The Individual Defendants and Pueblo Defendants together formed an
association-in-fact enterprise for the purpose of cultivating marijuana at 6480 Pickney
Road and selling it at Alternative Holistic Healing’s Black Hawk store, among other
places. To that end, they pooled their resources, knowledge, skills, and labor to
achieve through the enterprise efficiencies in the cultivation and distribution of
marijuana that none of them could have achieved individually.
76. All of the Individual Defendants and Pueblo Defendants have contractual
and other relationships with each other and are collaborating together to contribute to
the association-in-fact enterprise’s efforts to cultivate recreational marijuana at 6480
Pickney Road and thereby engage in an ongoing pattern of racketeering activity.
Alternative Holistic Healing, Joseph Licata, Jason Licata, 6480 Pickney, Walton, and
Camp Feel Good all participated in the agreement as part of which Alternative Holistic
Healing leased the 6480 Pickney Road property for cultivating marijuana. The Pueblo
28
Defendants issued and maintain a license for Alternative Holistic Healing on the
strength of a license application that identifies most of the other RICO defendants and
discloses the group’s plans to grow recreational marijuana at 6480 Pickney Road. And
regardless of whether Washington International Insurance Co., Blackhawk Development
Corp. and Guzman know the identities of all of their coconspirators, they are aware that
someone is performing the essential roles of their coconspirators in furtherance of the
enterprise’s criminal activities.
77. On information and belief, most decisions about how the property at 6480
Pickney Road is developed and used are made collectively by Alternative Holistic
Healing, Joseph Licata, Jason Licata, 6480 Pickney, and Walton, with each having an
important role in decisionmaking, operations, and management.
78. Defendants Walton and 6480 Pickney play central roles in the
management and operations of the association-in-fact enterprise. Acting on behalf of
the enterprise, Walton secured a water supply for growing marijuana from the City of
Florence, Colorado and sent proof of that water supply to Pueblo County officials in
order to support Alternative Holistic Healing’s local license application. Walton also
wrote the following note, which was included with Alternative Holistic Healing’s county
license application: “I, Parker Walton, as the sole member and manager of 6480
Pickney LLC, allow the use of RMJ (Retail Marijuana) cultivation facility on my property
at 6480 Pickney Rd. /s/ Parker Walton on behalf of 6480 Pickney LLC.” The Pueblo
County Commission considered Alternative Holistic Healing’s license application at a
December 22, 2014 hearing. Walton spoke at the hearing in support of the application,
29
describing himself as “the owner” of 6480 Pickney Road. Also at the hearing, Joseph
Licata referred to Walton as “the builder.” When the County Commission asked Joseph
Licata questions about the planned size of the cultivation facility and the number of
plants it would accommodate, he consulted Walton before answering.
79. Alternative Holistic Healing, Joseph Licata, and Jason Licata also have
important roles managing the enterprise’s affairs. Alternative Holistic Healing applied
for and holds the state and local licenses that authorize cultivation of marijuana at 6480
Pickney Road. As equal owners in Alternative Holistic Healing, Joseph Licata and
Jason Licata completed and signed those applications and make decisions about
Alternative Holistic Healing’s finances and business strategy.
80. The Pueblo Defendants also have a role in directing the affairs of the
association-in-fact enterprise because they approved the selection of 6480 Pickney
Road as the location for the group’s marijuana cultivation facility. Through their
licensing power, the Pueblo Defendants could have mandated that the marijuana grow
facility meet particular specifications, forced the selection of a different location, or
prevented the Individual Defendants from operating their drug conspiracy in Pueblo
County altogether. Instead, they authorized the cultivation to locate a few feet from the
Reillys’ property.
81. Black Hawk is a mountain community, and Defendant Brohl stated in an
interview that approximately 80 percent of marijuana sold in mountain communities is
purchased by out-of-state visitors. Thus, by supplying marijuana to a recreational store
in Black Hawk, the 6480 Pickney Road marijuana grow produces a large volume of
30
marijuana that moves in the interstate market for illegal drugs. Moreover, in
constructing the facility, the Individual Defendants procured products and services
through the interstate market in furtherance of the drug conspiracy.
82. All of the RICO defendants agreed to participate in and assist the
enterprise with full knowledge of its overall aim of growing and selling marijuana. As set
forth above, that goal could only be accomplished through numerous violations of the
CSA. Each such violation of the CSA is racketeering activity, and all of the RICO
defendants thus knew and intended that in agreeing to assist the enterprise they would
help it carry out a pattern of racketeering activity.
The Individual and Pueblo Defendants’ Marijuana Operations and the

State and Pueblo Defendants’ Decisions To License Those
Operations Injure the Reillys’ Property
83. Plaintiffs Phillis Windy Hope Reilly and Michael P. Reilly own lots 1, 2, and
6 of the Meadows at Legacy Ranch, a development on the south side of Pickney Road.
The Reillys’ lots form a contiguous parcel of approximately 105 acres of beautiful rolling
pasture with sweeping mountain vistas that include views of Pike’s Peak. Although the
Reillys do not live on their land, they often visit on weekends with their children to ride
horses, hike, and visit with friends in the closely-knit neighborhood. The Reillys’
property includes two agricultural buildings.
84. The 6480 Pickney Road marijuana grow is west and immediately adjacent
to the Reillys’ property. Although Defendant 6480 Pickney owns a 40-acre parcel, the
structure was built in the corner of the lot, just a few feet from the Reillys’ property line.
The building has marred the mountain views from the Reillys’ property, thus making it
31
less suitable for hiking and horseback riding. The building’s purpose—the manufacture
of illegal drugs—exacerbates this injury, for when the Reillys and their children visit the
property they are reminded of the racketeering enterprise next door every time they look
to the west.
85. Construction of the marijuana cultivation facility at 6480 Pickney Road was
completed in the latter part of 2015, and the facility is currently being used to grow
marijuana. Marijuana is an extremely odorous plant that emits a distinctive, skunk-like
smell that is particularly strong when the plant is harvested. Since construction of the
facility was completed, its operation has repeatedly caused a distinctive and unpleasant
marijuana smell to waft onto the Reillys’ property, with the smell strongest on the portion
of the Reillys’ property that is closest to Defendants’ marijuana cultivation facility. This
noxious odor makes the Reillys’ property less suitable for recreational and residential
purposes, interferes with the Reillys’ use and enjoyment of their property, and
diminishes the property’s value.
86. The Meadows at Legacy Ranch is a residential development that is
divided into approximately 35-acre tracts on which residents commonly keep horses.
To maintain the development’s pleasant, residential character, covenants expressly
prohibit most commercial uses of the land. Covenants also require that buildings be set
back at least fifty feet from any lot boundary, prohibit the keeping of pigs and other
odorous animals, and generally forbid “noxious, annoying or offensive activity.”
87. The 6480 Pickney Road marijuana grow is situated just outside the
boundaries of the Meadows at Legacy Ranch, and if it were within those boundaries it
32
would violate numerous covenants. The 6480 Pickney Road marijuana grow is a large
commercial structure situated less than fifty feet from the Reillys’ property.
Furthermore, growing recreational marijuana is “noxious, annoying or offensive activity”
by virtually any definition because marijuana plants are highly odorous, and their
offensive smell travels long distances. The Meadows at Legacy Ranch adopted its
covenants to protect property values and owners’ enjoyment of their land. The fact that
the Individual Defendants are using the land west of the Reillys’ property to do things
that the Reillys and their other neighbors have covenanted not to do shows that these
activities injure the Reillys’ property.
88. Terry Hart, one of the three members of the Pueblo County Commission,
agreed that the 6480 Pickney Road marijuana grow would interfere with surrounding
land uses and explained that he was voting against granting Alternative Holistic Healing
a local license for that reason.
89. The Individual and Pueblo Defendants’ publicly disclosed drug conspiracy
has also injured the value of the Reillys’ property. People buy lots at the Meadows at
Legacy Ranch because they want to keep horses or build homes in a pleasant
residential area, and the Reillys’ land is less suitable for those uses due to the 6480
Pickney Road marijuana grow. Furthermore, the large quantity of drugs at marijuana
grows makes them targets for theft, and a prospective buyer of the Reillys’ land would
reasonably worry that the 6480 Pickney Road marijuana grow increases crime in the
area. Prospective buyers would also object to the 6480 Pickney Road marijuana grow
because it emits pungent odors, thus further interfering with the use and enjoyment of
33
the Reillys’ land. As a result, the 6480 Pickney Road marijuana grow has directly and
proximately caused a decline in the market value of the Reillys’ land and made it more
difficult to sell at any price.
90. The Individual Defendants could not have located their marijuana grow
operation at 6480 Pickney Road if they had not received authorization from the State
and Pueblo Defendants to do so. Indeed, they did not begin construction on the
facilities at 6480 Pickney Road until the State and Pueblo Defendants authorized them
to grow marijuana at that location. Thus, the State and Pueblo Defendants have also
caused the Reillys to suffer injuries.
The State and Pueblo Defendants’ Issuance of Marijuana Licenses

Injures Other Safe Streets Members
91. In addition to the injuries suffered by the Reillys, other Safe Streets
members have also been injured by the State and Pueblo Defendants’ efforts to license
and promote the commercial marijuana industry.
92. Safe Streets members live near the MED-licensed marijuana businesses
located at 2000 S. Dahlia Street, Denver, CO 80222. Among those businesses is a
recreational marijuana-infused products manufacturer that has attracted an undesirable,
criminal element into the neighborhood and caused traffic congestion. By causing those
problems, MED’s decision to license the recreational marijuana infused products
manufacturer has substantially damaged the value of surrounding properties.
34
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
RICO COUNTS
COUNT I
Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)
Against Alternative Holistic Healing, Joseph Licata, Jason Licata,
6480 Pickney, Walton, and the Pueblo Defendants
93. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding
paragraphs.
94. RICO creates a private right of action for “[a]ny person injured in his
business or property by reason of a violation of [18 U.S.C. § 1962].” 18 U.S.C.
§ 1964(c). Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), it is “unlawful for any person employed by or
associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or
foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such
enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.” Alternative Holistic
Healing, Joseph Licata, Jason Licata, 6480 Pickney, Walton, and the Pueblo
Defendants each violated this provision of 18 U.S.C. § 1962.
95. All of the Individual and Pueblo Defendants formed an association-in-fact
enterprise within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) by establishing contractual and
other relationships with each other, collaborating to develop the 6480 Pickney Road
property for recreational marijuana cultivation, and agreeing to sell that marijuana at
Alternative Holistic Healing’s Black Hawk store. This enterprise enables the Individual
and Pueblo Defendants to more efficiently achieve their collective purpose.
96. Funding, goods, and services procured by the enterprise have moved in
interstate commerce, and the enterprise sells marijuana in interstate commerce.
35
97. Alternative Holistic Healing, Joseph Licata, Jason Licata, 6480 Pickney,
Walton, and the Pueblo Defendants each has some part in directing the enterprise’s
affairs. Alternative Holistic Healing, by and through its owners Joseph Licata and Jason
Licata, applied for licenses to operate the recreational marijuana grow at 6480 Pickney
Road, and they collectively manage the Black Hawk shop where the resulting marijuana
is sold. 6480 Pickney owns the property on which the marijuana is grown, and through
Walton it makes decisions about the design and operation of the building and the
enterprise’s overall finances. At the Pueblo County Commission hearing that
considered Alternative Holistic Healing’s application for a local license to grow
recreational marijuana at 6480 Pickney, both Joseph Licata and Walton spoke on behalf
of the enterprise. The Pueblo Defendants continue to authorize the enterprise’s
operations at 6480 Pickney Road, yet they could impose conditions on those operations
or force them to close or relocate.
98. Alternative Holistic Healing, Joseph Licata, Jason Licata, 6480 Pickney,
and Walton have each conducted or participated in the conduct of the affairs of the
enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. They collectively entered into a
lease under which 6480 Pickney Road has been used to commit numerous crimes
under the CSA, and that lease violates 21 U.S.C. § 856. They also conspired, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, to work together with the other members of the enterprise
for the success of Alternative Holistic Healing’s open-ended illegal recreational
marijuana business. On information and belief, they used communication facilities to
enter into their lease and their drug conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b).
36
Alternative Holistic Healing, Joseph Licata, and Jason Licata possess materials, goods,
and facilities for the manufacture of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6). All
of those crimes are racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D).
99. The Pueblo Defendants have likewise conducted or participated in the
conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. They
conspired with the other members of the enterprise to violate the CSA through the
cultivation of marijuana, thus violating 21 U.S.C. § 846. In furtherance of that
conspiracy and its numerous associated drug felonies, the Pueblo Defendants violated
21 U.S.C. § 843(b) by using communications facilities to facilitate the issuance of the
local license the enterprise needed. The Pueblo Defendants’ racketeering activities in
furtherance of the enterprise’s drug crimes threaten to continue indefinitely, as they
promote Alternative Holistic Healing’s marijuana business and use communications
facilities as part of the annual renewal of its license.
100. The racketeering activities of Alternative Holistic Healing, Joseph Licata,
Jason Licata, 6480 Pickney, Walton, and the Pueblo Defendants have directly and
proximately injured the Reillys’ property by causing noxious smells to travel onto that
property, interfering with its use and enjoyment, diminishing its market value, and
making it more difficult to sell.
COUNT II
Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
Against All Individual and Pueblo Defendants
paragraphs.
37
§ 1964(c). Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), it is “unlawful for any person to conspire to
violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.”
103. The Individual and Pueblo Defendants, for their mutual and individual
profit, agreed and conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) by forming an association-in-
fact enterprise for the purpose of cultivating recreational marijuana at 6480 Pickney
Road and selling it at Alternative Holistic Healing’s store in Black Hawk. The Individual
and Pueblo Defendants knew that this patently unlawful scheme could only be
accomplished through a pattern of racketeering activity, for maintaining a premises at
which marijuana is cultivated and sold, cultivating and selling marijuana, and
possessing the goods and materials needed to cultivate and process marijuana are all
crimes under the CSA. See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 843(a)(6), 856.
104. Funding, goods, and services procured by Defendants in furtherance of
their association-in-fact enterprise for the purpose of cultivating and selling recreational
marijuana have moved in interstate commerce, and the enterprise sells marijuana
grown at 6480 Pickney Road in interstate commerce.
105. The Individual and Pueblo Defendants have engaged in racketeering
activity in furtherance of their conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). All of the
Individual and Pueblo Defendants violated 21 U.S.C. § 846 by agreeing and conspiring
to assist in the establishment of the 6480 Pickney Road marijuana grow or in the
operations of Alternative Holistic Healing’s recreational marijuana business. And
38
Alternative Holistic Healing, 6480 Pickney, LLC, and their agents entered into a real
estate agreement to operate a recreational marijuana cultivation in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 856.
106. Racketeering activities undertaken in furtherance of the Individual and
Pueblo Defendants’ conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) have injured the Reillys’
property. Specifically, the lease, construction, and operation of the marijuana facility at
6480 Pickney Road in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856 and the drug conspiracy of which
those actions are a part directly and proximately injured the Reillys’ property by causing
noxious smells to travel onto that property, interfering with its use and enjoyment,
diminishing its market value, and making it more difficult to sell.
COUNT III
Against Joseph Licata, Jason Licata, and the Pueblo Defendants
paragraphs.
enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful
debt.”
39
109. An “enterprise” for purposes of RICO “includes any . . . partnership,
corporation, association, or other legal entity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). Alternative Holistic
Healing is a Colorado limited liability corporation. Thus, it is a RICO “enterprise.”
110. Joseph Licata and Jason Licata are equal owners and members of
Alternative Holistic Healing and have authority to speak and sign documents on its
behalf. They therefore have roles in directing its affairs.
111. The Pueblo Defendants also have a role in directing the affairs of
Alternative Holistic Healing because they authorized its operations at 6480 Pickney
Road and could impose conditions on those operations or force them to close or
relocate.
112. Joseph Licata and Jason Licata have each conducted or participated in
the conduct of the affairs of Alternative Holistic Healing through a pattern of
racketeering activity. Together, they oversee the growing, processing, and sale of
recreational marijuana at Alternative Holistic Healing’s Black Hawk store in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a), 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6), and 21 U.S.C. § 856. They entered into a
lease under which marijuana is being cultivated at 6480 Pickney Road in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 856. They conspired with each other, 6480 Pickney, LLC, and Walton to
violate numerous provisions of the CSA by growing recreational marijuana and thus
violated 21 U.S.C. § 846. They advertise marijuana for sale over the Internet in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(c)(2)(A). On information and belief, they have each violated
21 U.S.C. § 843(b) by using the telephone, email, or other communication facilities to
take steps in furtherance of the many violations of the CSA that occur at their Black
40
Hawk store and the 6480 Pickney Road recreational marijuana grow facility. Each of
those crimes is racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D), and together they
represent an ongoing pattern that will continue unless this Court intervenes.
113. The Pueblo Defendants have also conducted or participated in the
conduct of the affairs of Alternative Holistic Healing through a pattern of racketeering
activity. They conspired with Joseph Licata and Jason Licata to violate the CSA
through the cultivation of marijuana, thus violating 21 U.S.C. § 846. In furtherance of
that conspiracy and its numerous associated drug felonies, the Pueblo Defendants
violated 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) by using communications facilities to facilitate the issuance
of the local license Alternative Holistic Healing needed. The Pueblo Defendants’
racketeering activities in furtherance of the enterprise’s drug crimes threaten to continue
indefinitely, as they promote Alternative Holistic Healing’s marijuana business and use
communications facilities as part of the annual renewal of its license.
114. Funding, goods, and services procured by Joseph Licata and Jason Licata
for Alternative Holistic Healing’s unlawful activities have moved in interstate commerce,
and Alternative Holistic Healing sells marijuana—including marijuana grown at the 6480
Pickney Road cultivation facility—in the interstate market for illegal drugs.
115. The racketeering activities of Joseph Licata and Jason Licata directly and
COUNT IV
41
Against Joseph Licata, Jason Licata, Blackhawk Development Corp., Guzman,

Washington International Insurance, and the Pueblo Defendants
paragraphs.
violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.” Joseph Licata,
Jason Licata, Blackhawk Development Corp., Guzman, Washington International
Insurance, and the Pueblo Defendants agreed and conspired to violate 18 U.S.C.
§ 1962(c).
corporation, association, or other legal entity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). Alternative Holistic
Healing is a Colorado limited liability corporation. It is a RICO “enterprise.”
119. Funding, goods, and services procured in furtherance of Alternative
Holistic Healing’s unlawful activities have moved in interstate commerce, and
Alternative Holistic Healing sells marijuana—including marijuana cultivated at 6480
Pickney Road—in the interstate market for illegal drugs.
120. Joseph Licata, Jason Licata, Blackhawk Development Corp., Guzman,
Washington International Insurance, and the Pueblo Defendants are each associated
with Alternative Holistic Healing and agreed to help Alternative Holistic Healing establish
and operate a recreational marijuana grow facility at 6480 Pickney Road and a
recreational marijuana store in Black Hawk.
42
121. Joseph Licata, Jason Licata, Blackhawk Development Corp., Guzman,
Washington International Insurance, and the Pueblo Defendants each understood that
their collective efforts to establish and operate the recreational marijuana operations at
6480 Pickney Road and in Black Hawk could only be accomplished through a pattern of
racketeering activity. Specifically, all understood and agreed that Joseph Licata and
Jason Licata would violate the CSA by cultivating recreational marijuana and selling it,
21 U.S.C. § 841(a), possessing the equipment and materials necessary for marijuana
cultivation, id. § 843(a)(6), and maintaining the premises at 6480 Pickney Road and in
Black Hawk for cultivating and selling recreational marijuana, id. §§ 849, 856. Each of
those crimes is racketeering activity, and together they form an ongoing pattern.
122. Racketeering activities undertaken in furtherance of the conspiracy among
Joseph Licata, Jason Licata, Blackhawk Development Corp., Guzman, Washington
International Insurance, and the Pueblo Defendants to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) have
injured the Reillys’ property. Specifically, the construction at 6480 Pickney Road in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856 and the drug conspiracy of which that construction is a part
directly and proximately injured the Reillys’ property by causing noxious smells to travel
onto that property, interfering with its use and enjoyment, diminishing its market value,
and making it more difficult to sell.
COUNT V
Against Walton and the Pueblo Defendants
paragraphs.
43
enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful
debt.”
corporation, association, or other legal entity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). 6480 Pickney,
LLC, is a Colorado corporation. It is a RICO “enterprise.”
126. Walton is the owner and sole member of 6480 Pickney, LLC, and thus has
a role in directing its affairs.
127. The Pueblo Defendants also have a role in directing the affairs of 6480
Pickney because they authorized its operations at 6480 Pickney Road and could
impose conditions on those operations or force them to close or relocate.
128. 6480 Pickney, LLC owns property where a specially designed building is
used to grow recreational marijuana for sale into the interstate market for illegal drugs,
and materials used to construct the building were acquired in interstate commerce.
129. Walton has conducted or participated in the conduct of the affairs of 6480
Pickney, LLC through a pattern of racketeering activity. In violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856,
he leased the 6480 Pickney Road property for use as a recreational marijuana
cultivation facility. And in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, he agreed and conspired with
44
Alternative Holistic Healing, Joseph Licata, and Jason Licata to assist them in their
ongoing violations of the CSA. On information and belief, Walton acquired materials for
the cultivation of marijuana in connection with the 6480 Pickney Road operations in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6). On information and belief, Walton has used the
telephone, email, or other communication facilities in furtherance of his other violations
of the CSA, thus violating 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). Those crimes are racketeering activity
under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D) and together form a pattern.
130. The Pueblo Defendants have also conducted or participated in the
conduct of the affairs of 6480 Pickney through a pattern of racketeering activity. They
conspired with Walton to violate the CSA through the cultivation of marijuana, thus
violating 21 U.S.C. § 846. In furtherance of that conspiracy and its numerous
associated drug felonies, the Pueblo Defendants violated 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) by using
communications facilities to facilitate the issuance of the local license required to
cultivate marijuana at 6480 Pickney Road. The Pueblo Defendants’ racketeering
activities in furtherance of the enterprise’s drug crimes threaten to continue indefinitely,
as they promote 6480 Pickney’s marijuana business and use communications facilities
as part of the annual renewal of the necessary license.
131. The racketeering activities of Walton and the Pueblo Defendants directly
and proximately injured the Reillys’ property by causing noxious smells to travel onto
that property, interfering with its use and enjoyment, diminishing its market value, and
45
COUNT VI
Against Walton, John Doe 1, and the Pueblo Defendants
paragraphs.
violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.” Walton, John
Doe 1, and the Pueblo Defendants agreed and conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
corporation, association, or other legal entity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). 6480 Pickney, LLC
is a Colorado corporation. It is a RICO “enterprise.”
135. 6480 Pickney, LLC owns property where a building is used to grow
recreational marijuana for sale into the interstate market for illegal drugs, and materials
used to construct the building were acquired in interstate commerce.
136. Walton and John Doe 1 have engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity
in connection with 6480 Pickney, LLC. In violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856, Walton leased
the 6480 Pickney Road property for use as a recreational marijuana cultivation facility.
And in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, Walton and John Doe 1 agreed and conspired with
Alternative Holistic Healing, Joseph Licata, and Jason Licata to assist them in their
ongoing violations of the CSA by developing the 6480 Pickney Road property for
marijuana cultivation. On information and belief, Walton acquired materials for the
46
cultivation of marijuana in connection with the 6480 Pickney Road operations in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6). On information and belief, both Walton and John
Doe 1 have used the telephone, email, or other communication facilities in furtherance
of their drug conspiracy, thus violating 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). Those crimes are
racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D) and together form a pattern.
137. The Pueblo Defendants have also engaged in a pattern of racketeering
activity in connection with 6480 Pickney, LLC. They conspired with Walton to violate
the CSA through the cultivation of marijuana, thus violating 21 U.S.C. § 846. In
furtherance of that conspiracy and its numerous associated drug felonies, the Pueblo
Defendants violated 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) by using communications facilities to facilitate
the issuance of the local license required to cultivate marijuana at 6480 Pickney Road.
138. The racketeering activities of Walton and John Doe 1 directly and
PREEMPTION COUNTS
COUNT VII
Federal Preemption of State Marijuana Licensing
Against State Defendants
paragraphs.
140. The Supremacy Clause makes the United States Constitution and
constitutionally authorized federal statutes “the supreme law of the land . . . anything in
47
the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. CONST. art.
VI, cl. 2. Thus, where federal and state law conflict, state law is preempted and must
yield. Federal courts sitting in equity have the power to set aside actions of state
officials that are preempted under the Supremacy Clause.
141. Although the CSA does not occupy the field of marijuana regulation, it
says that state law is preempted where “there is a positive conflict” between the CSA
and state law “so that the two cannot consistently stand together.” 21 U.S.C. § 903.
142. The CSA imposes substantial criminal penalties on those who unlawfully
cultivate and commercially distribute recreational marijuana. See id. § 841(b)(1).
Those penalties reflect Congress’s determination that marijuana should be listed as a
Schedule I drug because it has a high potential for abuse. See id. § 812(b)(1), (c). The
CSA thus embodies a strong federal policy that seeks to eliminate the commercial
cultivation and distribution of recreational marijuana through a complete criminal
prohibition on those activities.
143. Despite the federal criminal ban on the commercial cultivation and
distribution of recreational marijuana, MED raises revenue for the State of Colorado
through a regulatory regime that purports to authorize, regulate, and tax federal drug
crimes involving marijuana.
144. MED’s licenses also affirmatively assist and promote the commercial
cultivation and distribution of recreational marijuana by functioning as a state
endorsement of licensed businesses and employees. This endorsement assists
48
potential recreational marijuana investors and customers by assuring them that
licensees have been investigated and approved by the State.
145. Thus, MED’s issuance of recreational marijuana licenses directly conflicts
with the CSA and poses an obstacle to the achievement of the CSA’s purposes.
“[T]here is a positive conflict” between the CSA and MED’s practice of issuing marijuana
licenses and “the two cannot consistently stand together.” 21 U.S.C. § 903. It follows
that MED’s licensing regime is preempted by federal law and cannot stand.
COUNT VIII
Federal Preemption of Local Marijuana Licensing
Against Pueblo Defendants
paragraphs.
147. The Supremacy Clause makes the United States Constitution and federal
statutes “the supreme law of the land . . . anything in the constitution or laws of any
state to the contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2. Thus, where federal
and local law conflict, local law is preempted and must yield. Federal courts sitting in
equity have the power to set aside actions of local governments that are preempted
under the Supremacy Clause.
148. Although the CSA does not occupy the field of marijuana regulation, it
says that local law is preempted where “there is a positive conflict” between the CSA
and local law “so that the two cannot consistently stand together.” 21 U.S.C. § 903.
149. The CSA imposes substantial criminal penalties on those who unlawfully
cultivate and commercially distribute recreational marijuana. See id. § 841(b)(1).
49
Those penalties reflect Congress’s determination that marijuana should be listed as a
Schedule I drug because it has a high potential for abuse. See id. § 812(b)(1), (c). The
CSA thus embodies a strong federal policy that seeks to reduce the cultivation and
distribution of recreational marijuana through a complete prohibition on those activities.
150. Despite the federal criminal ban on the commercial cultivation and
distribution of recreational marijuana, the Pueblo Defendants raise revenue for the
County through a regulatory regime that purports to authorize, regulate, and tax federal
drug crimes involving marijuana.
151. The Pueblo Defendants issue licenses that affirmatively assist and
promote the cultivation and distribution of recreational marijuana by functioning as an
official endorsement of licensed recreational marijuana businesses and employees.
This endorsement assists potential recreational marijuana investors and customers by
assuring them that licensees have been investigated and approved by the Pueblo
Defendants.
152. Thus, the Pueblo Defendants’ issuance of marijuana licenses directly
conflicts with the CSA and poses an obstacle to the achievement of the CSA’s
purposes. For this reason, “there is a positive conflict” between the CSA and the
Pueblo Defendants’ practice of issuing marijuana licenses and “the two cannot
consistently stand together.” 21 U.S.C. § 903. The Pueblo Defendants’ licensing
regime is thus preempted by federal law and cannot stand.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
153. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for an order and judgment:
50
a. Awarding the Reillys three times the damages to their property that
was caused by the Individual and Pueblo Defendants’ racketeering activities.
b. Enjoining the Individual and Pueblo Defendants from continuing to
engage in racketeering activities.
c. Declaring that the State Defendants’ issuance of marijuana
business and occupational licenses is preempted by federal law.
d. Vacating and setting aside the marijuana business and
occupational licenses issued by the State Defendants.
e. Enjoining the State Defendants from issuing additional marijuana
business and occupational licenses.
f. Declaring that those portions of the Colorado Constitution and the
Retail Marijuana Code that purport to authorize or facilitate violations of the
federal drug laws are preempted by federal law.
g. Declaring that the Pueblo Defendants’ issuance of marijuana
business licenses is preempted by federal law.
h. Vacating and setting aside the marijuana business licenses issued
by the Pueblo Defendants.
i. Enjoining the Pueblo Defendants from issuing additional marijuana
business licenses.
j. Declaring that those portions of the Pueblo County Code that
purport to authorize or facilitate violations of the federal drug laws are
preempted by federal law.
51
k. Awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable costs, including attorneys’ fees
incurred in bringing this litigation.
l. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
Date: February 1, 2016 Respectfully submitted,
s/David H. Thompson
David H. Thompson
Counsel of Record
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 220-9600
(202) 220-9601 (fax)
dthompson@cooperkirk.com
Of Counsel:
Charles J. Cooper
Michael W. Kirk
Howard C. Nielson, Jr.
Peter A. Patterson
Brian W. Barnes
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 220-9600
(202) 220-9601 (fax)
Counsel for Plaintiffs
52
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 1, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing with
the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to
counsel for all parties in this case.
s/ Brian W. Barnes
BRIAN W. BARNES
53

Reilly Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reilly Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:15-cv-00349-REB-SKC Document 126 Filed 02/01/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 54

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civil Action No. 15-349

SAFE STREETS ALLIANCE, PHILLIS WINDY HOPE REILLY, and MICHAEL P.

ALTERNATIVE HOLISTIC HEALING, LLC, d/b/a Rocky Mountain Organic; JOSEPH R.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

requires those who engage in racketeering activity—including the commercial

encouraging Colorado’s recreational marijuana trade, including the racketeering activity

must be set aside.

1. It is a bedrock principle of the United States Constitution that federal law is

to deal in marijuana. Despite the express federal prohibition on marijuana, Colorado

notwithstanding that recreational marijuana is now “legal” in Colorado, the drug’s

laws prohibiting the commercial trade in recreational marijuana.

2. Of course, in recent years the United States Department of Justice has

individuals of their judicially-enforceable rights under federal law. The Department of

passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970.

3. Marijuana businesses make bad neighbors. They emit pungent, foul

down property values. Safe Streets is a nonprofit organization devoted to reducing

CSA, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq., and the Supremacy Clause.

4. Dealing in marijuana is racketeering activity under RICO, and those who

engage in a pattern of racketeering activity through a corporation or other enterprise are

notorious violation of federal law.

Colorado of issuing licenses to operate recreational marijuana businesses. Those

through an almost total prohibition on the drug’s cultivation and distribution.

not to issue any additional such licenses in the future.

2201, and 2202.

7. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because most of

8. Plaintiff Safe Streets is a membership organization whose members are

interested in law enforcement issues, particularly the enforcement of federal laws

prohibiting the cultivation, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Plaintiffs Phillis

licensed marijuana industry.

the recreational marijuana grow at 6480 Pickney Road, Rye, CO 81069.

10. Defendant Alternative Holistic Healing, LLC, d/b/a Rocky Mountain

Highway 119, Unit B, Black Hawk, CO 80422, where it operates a recreational

marijuana cultivation facility and retail shop. It operates an additional recreational

marijuana cultivation facility at 6480 Pickney Road.

11. Defendant Joseph R. Licata has a fifty percent interest in Alternative

12. Defendant Jason M. Licata has a fifty percent interest in Alternative

14. Defendant Camp Feel Good, LLC is a Colorado corporation Walton

P.O. Box 20236, Colorado City, CO 81019.

15. Defendant Roger Guzman (“Guzman”) is the President of Defendant

Blackhawk Development Corporation, a Colorado corporation that owns the property at

1743, Evergreen, CO 80437.

16. Defendant Washington International Insurance Co. is a New Hampshire

corporation that issues surety bonds on behalf of marijuana businesses in Colorado,

including Alternative Holistic Healing. Its principal place of business at 475 N.

Martingale Road #850, Schaumburg, IL 60173.

the “Individual Defendants.”

18. Defendant John W. Hickenlooper, Jr., is the Governor of Colorado and is

named in his official capacity. As Colorado’s chief executive official, Hickenlooper is

19. Defendant Barbara J. Brohl is the Executive Director of the Colorado

Enforcement Division is a division of the state’s Department of Revenue, and it

licenses to Colorado marijuana businesses. The Department of Revenue’s principal

office is located at 1375 Sherman Street, Denver, CO 80261.

20. Defendant W. Lewis Koski is the Director of the Colorado Marijuana

21. Defendant Board of County Commissioners of the County of Pueblo

They are hereinafter referred to as the “Pueblo Defendants.”

Federal Law Prohibits the Production and Distribution of Recreational Marijuana

United States by prohibiting the unauthorized production, distribution, or possession of

manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances

trafficking by prohibiting the illicit drug trade.

classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug. Id. § 812(c). Congress thus deemed

as a Schedule I drug, as opposed to listing it on a lesser schedule, Congress made the

manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana a criminal offense, with the sole